Is Landlord allowed to enter with notice but without permission?

joshsw25

Most of what you guys are saying is correct (especially the too many colours part) but technically incorrect in areas.


A tenant never has any rights over the property beyond possession and enjoyment. he does not enjoy the rights of an owner and whilst he can live there he does not have the inherent right to do as he pleases with the property.


You are quite right, you could repaint it, though technically this could still be against the tenancy agreement.


Put it like this - If your tree overhangs my garden and I cut she branches which overhang have I done anything wrong? no. but if you do not offer them the branches back, it is theft.


Yes, it is all a moot point and the losses are minimal (since he could want restoration only in all likelihood) but like I stated, I was giving a worst case scenario....and it does happen.

Guest101

Cornucopia wrote: »

This question comes up so often, there must be a reputable recent third-party reference that would clear up this issue to everyone's satisfaction. - Really? Could you not just read the last 12 posts?

IANAL, but I would have thought that the lock including the original barrel is the physical possession - Well no, the physical possesion is actually with the tenant, but i suspect you mean legal ownership - of the LL, and if removed and disposed of, or damaged in the act of removal, - yes if Damaged or Destroyed, neither of which are a common consequence of changing a lock. (its really, really easy). that COULD constitute criminal damage. Proving it to a criminal standard, however, could be tricky. - It could be criminal damage, if it is damaged or destroyed and the court does not accept any of the defence presented in the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

If the original barrel and keys are retained so as to be able to reinstate them then that may have a bearing on things. - Yes it would, because the offence is property which is 'damaged or destroyed', which clearly would not be the case if the lock was safely stored.

Also, most ASTs (have you read 'most' of the millions of ASTs that currently exist? ) would have a "locks & keys" clause that required new keys to be provided to the LL in the case of changes to locks. So the question is what is the LL's remedy if a tenant does not do that? - To go to court and convince a judge that the clause is enforceable, an the judge will then decide, if on the balance of probabilities, with the evidence in front of him, that the clause is A; fair and B: reasonable.

Personally, I don't see a legal resolution to this. - Court. Both sides just need to be reasonable. Personally, I don't think that a tenant cancelling a viewing on another property is that big a deal, especially when the requested viewing falls within the originally offered time period.

Probably would've helped if you'd bothered to read the thread.....

joshsw25

HappyMJ wrote: »

Criminal damage no. Act of negligence maybe. Accidental damage very much most likely. It's civil though. As long as you fix the mess you've caused then it's not criminal damage. You can destroy the original lock if you want just as long as you leave a similar replacement so no loss is caused to the LL.

LEGAL: DESTROYING OR DAMAGING PROPERTY. CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1971 SEC 1(PT) (1) “A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged

the door is the property of the ll and is damaged (which includes altering)....it's a mute point and it's been taken way too far but the salient points remain.


Sensible thing to do is be reasonable and insist they do the same


If they don't, report them to the relevant bodies

Guest101

joshsw25 wrote: »

Most of what you guys are saying is correct (especially the too many colours part) but technically incorrect in areas. - What I am saying is 'technically' absolutely correct, i'm not starting to defend ther people's posts.


A tenant never has any rights over the property beyond possession and enjoyment - Not quite correct, the tenant has EXCLUSIVE possesion and use of the property. he does not enjoy the rights of an owner - Which rights? You need to be more specific. In some cases a tenant can sell the lease. So which rights are you referring to? and whilst he can live there he does not have the inherent right to do as he pleases with the property. - Well typically he or she does, actually. But in line with using the property as a residence.


You are quite right, you could repaint it, though technically this could still be against the tenancy agreement. - So not criminal damage? So its a breach of contract? Which is rectified how? - we've just been through this, so you should know the answer.


Put it like this - If your tree overhangs my garden and I cut she branches which overhang have I done anything wrong? no. but if you (I) do not offer them the branches back, it is theft. - Correct. Ten points to the trainee solicitor on the basics of ownership.


Yes, it is all a moot point and the losses are minimal (non existant) (since he could want restoration only in all likelihood) but like I stated, I was giving a worst case scenario....and it does happen. - No, it doesnt.

Mate, if i was you, i'd be asking a refund for the course you studied...

Guest101

joshsw25 wrote: »

LEGAL: DESTROYING OR DAMAGING PROPERTY. CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1971 SEC 1(PT) (1) “A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged - Thank you for reading the link i provided for you. As you seem to pay for your education, please advice where i can send my request for payment

the door is the property of the ll and is damaged (which includes altering - No it doesnt. )....it's a mute point and it's been taken way too far but the salient points remain. - Which is?


Sensible thing to do is be reasonable and insist they do the same - Always.


If they don't, report them to the relevant bodies

Think the lesson to be learn here is "dont claim to be legally qualified and then not be able to back it up, thereby looking a bit foolish..."

Cornucopia

HappyMJ wrote: »

Criminal damage no. Act of negligence maybe. Accidental damage very much most likely. It's civil though. As long as you fix the mess you've caused then it's not criminal damage. You can destroy the original lock if you want just as long as you leave a similar replacement so no loss is caused to the LL.

We now have the legal definition of Criminal Damage. So we now know that it depends on both the act and the intent (or could be negligence).

I think we have the basis of the offence dealt with. The only issue is proving it. I'm guessing that emailing the LL and telling him you will change the locks might be considered relevant by the Court if the lock is subsequently damaged or destroyed. And yes, they would probably consider replacement and remediation as mitigating factors, too.

mrginge

Remember tenants, don't change those blown light bulbs or you could find yourself with a criminal record!

mrginge

And please don't even think about mowing the landlords grass.

Guest101

Or dusting / vacuuming.

GwylimT

joshsw25 wrote: »

As a trainee solicitor, I assure you it is. In fact a shorthold tenant can't even paint the wall without permission so changing the locks is a no-no. He could require to you to have them immediately replaced again.

Again, incorrect.